We can, like Mushtaq Ahmed, spin it both ways. We could herald the first half of the summer of 2007 as a minor triumph. Michael Vaughan resumes the captaincy and races past Peter May as the England captain with the most victories to his name. West Indies are walloped 3-0. Yet another series win after that little hiccup Down Under. Peter Moores is embedded as coach and gives fresh momentum to slick, sleek Team England. And all these riches come without the presence of the great all-rounder Andrew Flintoff.

Or we might conclude that no England side could have failed to beat a dreadful West Indies Test team, whose incompetence was exacerbated by no practice, injuries, arctic conditions during their trek around the northern shires and a board back home who haven't a clue. England could bowl like novices and still win.

Then when the white ball came into play we saw England in their true colours: a motley collection of county journeymen and non-achieving Test stars were beaten 2-1 in the NatWest series. England could not realistically claim to be a half-decent one-day team, although that does not usually stop them trying.

For the moment, I lean towards the latter interpretation. However, the series against India should help to decide whether any progress is being made. India are hardly on the crest of a wave, but a side featuring Sachin Tendulkar, Rahul Dravid, VVS Laxman and Sourav Ganguly provide a Test challenge way beyond that offered by West Indies, or, to be more precise, the heroic Shivnarine Chanderpaul. And the law of averages demands that they will have the advantage of playing some cricket in sunshine.

Given the outcome of the West Indies Test series, the England selectors are unlikely to surprise us this morning. There is a problem with Steve Harmison who has a recurrence of his hernia injury. David Graveney said that Harmison will be reassessed on Monday before adding that he was 'extremely doubtful' for the Test, in which case James Anderson is the likely replacement in the final XI. An additional paceman will be named in a squad of 13.

Andrew Strauss is under more pressure for his place than anyone. The fact that he was chosen to lead the England Lions (the A team under another name) against India at Chelmsford is surely more a warning shot than a vote of confidence.

Strauss did hit 77 in the final match against West Indies at the Riverside, his first half-century in 10 Test knocks, but the way he scratched around in the second innings suggested that the gremlins are still with him. They will be loath to omit him for three reasons: he is a trusted veteran now of 40 Tests; he is a good bloke; there is no obvious like-for-like replacement in the wings so that his omission would cause ripples of change that most teams like to avoid.

England could draft in Strauss's Middlesex colleague Owais Shah or Essex's Ravi Bopara, but neither is an opener. If they do, Vaughan would have to revert to opening the batting, hardly a radical change, but not ideal as England's captain completes his rehabilitation. The one long-term replacement at the top of the order, if the Strauss slump continues, might be his old partner, Marcus Trescothick.

But the earliest that Trescothick could conceivably return as a Test opener is in Kandy in December and there are many hurdles to overcome before that is possible. Somerset's director of cricket, Brian Rose, urges caution in the knowledge that there is no space for any more touring setbacks. Even Trescothick was suitably measured about his inclusion in the preliminary Twenty20 squad for September's World Cup in South Africa. As it happens, Trescothick has been far more prolific in the longer game this summer.

The other place up for discussion is that of Ryan Sidebottom. Unlike Strauss, he has done nothing wrong. At the Riverside he took five wickets in the first innings and he ended the series with 16 at a highly respectable average of 21.

The question marks over Sidebottom are whether his style of bowling will function in the future on subcontinental tours - this winter England are in Sri Lanka in December and New Zealand, where he could be effective, in March - and the perennial problem of who bats at eight.

It did not take Duncan Fletcher long to decide that he would never take to the field with three number 11s in his team (as in Devon Malcolm, Alan Mullally and Phil Tufnell). With Sidebottom playing - as he should be at the moment - Moores' team have four number 10s, hardly ideal.

So one of Harmison (or Anderson), Matthew Hoggard, Ryan Sidebottom and Monty Panesar, all of whom bat at 10 or 11 in county cricket, will have to bat at eight in a Test match. Forget the propaganda of a few months ago; Panesar will never be a bona fide Test number eight. Moores is sufficiently pragmatic to recognise that this balance cannot be sustained indefinitely, but it may have to do for Lord's.

There are potential number eights on the sidelines, who are not ready or sufficiently reliable: Liam Plunkett, Stuart Broad and, here's one to keep the romantics happy, Adil Rashid, the Yorkshire wrist spinner. For the moment Sidebottom is a better bet.

One intriguing element of the series will be to see how the teams fare, given the contrasting nature of their backroom staffs. England now have Andy Flower and Allan Donald, both highly impressive men as well as cricketers, alongside Moores. India, despite all their resources, are still looking for the man to succeed Greg Chappell as coach.

Dilip Vengsarkar, their chief selector, is travelling with the team throughout the tour. But essentially India will operate in the old-fashioned way with the captain and his senior players in charge. They have a quartet of thirtysomethings in their squad with vast experience: Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly are all 34, Anil Kumble is 36. Is a high-powered, influential coach essential in the modern era or can a group of senior players still run the show effectively? Again I lean towards the latter.